The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt, many cities are on the verge of insolvency, our overrun healthcare system, police forces, social services, schools, and our unsustainably generous welfare-state programs are stretched to the max. We average Americans know that. So why has this issue been allowed to be turned upside down with our “leader” creating such unsafe conditions while at the same time obstructing any economic recovery by creating more dependents than he allows producers? His friendly wealthy bipartisan elite, who want cheap foreign labor and can afford for themselves the best “border security” money can buy in their own exclusive communities, do not care that Obama tapped us out…

President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights.

It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.

She’s the first Republican of any significant national stature to make this call. And she’s the kind of figure who could potentially recruit others to the cause — people who will want to be heard. Palin surely doesn’t carry the kind of weight she once did in the GOP, but she still has a significant tea party following and is highly popular among the conservative base…

[I]t throws a sizable and unpredictable variable into what was already shaping up to be a good election year for Republicans. That same could be said for the Benghazi investigation (though that effort appears to have the support of the American people). The name of the game for the GOP right now is maintaining their edge and trying to win back the Senate. Everything else is noise.

Secondly, it lends credence to Democrats’ argument that Republicans are controlled by the extreme wing of their party. And to the extent that Democrats can make the 2014 election a referendum on the GOP’s conduct in Congress (see: government shutdown), it’s to their benefit.

Buchanan made the same points in arguing against impeachment: “The effect would be to enrage and energize the Democratic base, bring out the African-American vote in force and cause the major media to charge the GOP with a racist scheme to discredit and destroy our first black president.” Rush Limbaugh scoffed for similar reasons back in March. When Republican congressmen have had this question tossed at them during town halls over the past five years, the usual response is that there’s no point impeaching when the Senate is controlled by Democrats. The Senate will vote to acquit, Obama will remain in office, and that’ll be that. It’s silly to put the country through an ordeal where the outcome is foreordained, especially when the political fallout is unpredictable and potentially damaging to the GOP. That argument becomes (slightly) harder to make, though, if Republicans retake the Senate this fall. Impeachment would still be futile: You need two-thirds of the Senate to vote for conviction to remove the president from office, and there’s no way no how no chance the GOP will have anything close to 67 seats in January. But maybe that won’t appease impeachment supporters. If you’ve got a majority, they might say, why not at least try? Even if they fail (and they will), there’ll at least be some moral sanction in reaching a bare majority to convict. It could even be that Obama will feel chastened by the rebuke and act less aggressively in 2015-16. I’m … pretty sure that wouldn’t happen, but that’ll be the argument.

Needless to say, although the prime target here is Obama, the secondary target is Mitch McConnell and the looming Senate Republican majority. I remember writing somewhere last year after the shutdown that impeachment could become the new “defund” effort — doomed to futility but sufficiently pure in intent and supported by a Republican with sufficiently high standing among grassroots conservatives that to oppose it for logistical reasons is to fail an ideological litmus test. Ted Cruz gave “defund” its political rocket fuel, Palin potentially could be providing the rocket fuel to impeachment. If McConnell decides that it’s pointless to try it because they’ll never get 10-15 Democrats to join them in convicting, it’ll be taken by righties as “proof” that squishy Republican majorities are no better than Democratic ones. That’s a useful grievance for a tea-party champion like Cruz to run on in the 2016 primaries, which makes me eager to hear what he thinks of this idea. I’m also eager to see which policies, specifically, Boehner will cite in his separation-of-powers lawsuit against O, as I’m pretty sure he’s not going to follow Palin’s advice and name immigration as Obama’s chief offense. The last thing the GOP establishment wants is to give the media a reason to print “REPUBLICANS SUE TO KEEP ILLEGALS OUT” headlines when Beltway Republicans are desperate to pander to Latinos before 2016. But that’s potentially also useful to a Cruz 2016 campaign: If both Boehner and McConnell refuse to challenge Obama on DACA and other immigration policies, Cruz could position himself as a champion of border enforcement by contrast.

By the way, don’t be so sure there’d be a majority in favor of convicting Obama even if Republicans retake the Senate. The usual centrist suspects — Collins, Murkowski, Kirk, et al. — will be chilly to the idea. And now that Thad Cochran owes his reelection to black Democrats in Mississippi, it’s hard to believe he’d turn around and vote to remove the first black president. To even have a bare majority willing to convict, I suspect you’d need at least 57 or so seats in GOP hands next year, which is a tall order for November. But again, this is mainly about constructing a true conservative/RINO litmus test, so if a bunch of RINOs end up voting to acquit, no biggie. That’ll simply be taken as proof of the underlying point that the Senate needs more tea partiers. Speaking of which, your exit question: Does John McCain agree with his former running mate that the president should be impeached? Inquiring minds want to know!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Barack Hussein Obama absolutely needs to be impeached by at least the House and a majority of Senate for a small government conservative legacy. We have to draw a line in the sand to define conservatism. O’s approval ratings are already in the toilet and the GOP needs to keep handing him anvils. If Obama’s approval can be be driven below 25%, it’d be possible to force him to resign without an official impeachment.

His crimes are numerous but start with Gowdy’s Behghazi investigation as the primary case, then the illegal alien invasion from Mexico, and then the Obamacare executive overreach.

Actually, I think it’s time to ARREST Obama, and take away his ability to do more damage to this Republic. Impeachment should follow, of course, but he should be arrested NOW, along with Holder, Lerner, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the traitors currently holding office. It’s the only way to definitively stop the ongoing destruction, while also allowing for the re-implementation of the rule of law.

Short of armed rev0lution, I see no other way. This country will cease to exist in its present form by 2016 if Obama isn’t stopped.

Regardless of what people may think of Sarah Palin, one thing that she ALWAYS does is “tells it like it is.” She is absolutely correct in her assessment of this President — he has demonstrated numerous times that he simply ignores laws that he doesn’t like, enacts executive orders that are clearly outside his authority as President, and openly challenges the U.S. Congress to do anything about it. What’s worse is that his disregard for the rule of law has filtered down through the Federal government in the form of increasing belligerence on the part of DHS towards American citizens moving freely within the borders of the US, and down into State and local law enforcement — an excellent example of this is the behavior of the Boston Police Department after the Boston Marathon bombing. There were numerous instances of police officers breaking down doors to private residences without any type of search warrant and forcibly removing homeowners from their own property.

This President has done more damage to this nation than Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter combined, and he needs to be removed. Sarah Palin has got it spot on.

the tea party will destroy us all, they are the evil party`s best friend. the wacko bird is on hannity now and he`s lapping it all up. damn the torpedoes full speed ahead. who cares about the consequences. we want to vent our inner child. god save us all.

Well, we need to have the debate. Right now, articles are way premature, but as a nation, we need to have a serious debate about the power of the presidency, and the degree to which the president has abused his office.

Impeachment is a political tool to reign in a lawless president, but it must be driven by the will of the people, rather than merely by the members of congress.

But, if the president is not to become simply an elected monarch, it is time to have the debate.

Now for some interesting irony, the amount of power that the current president is accruing to the office does mean that the next conservative president could simply turn off the welfare state by executive order.

After a certain point (a point surpassed quite some time ago), the politics have to take a back seat to some simple truth. Obama has committed dozens of impeachable offenses. It just doesn’t matter that Boehner is too cowardly or too far up Barack’s backside to act on it, the need to state as fact that the President ought to be impeached is compelling. It doesn’t matter that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to convict, regardless what is enacted by the House, the Constitution is screaming for someone to defend it, and it seems that no current federal officeholder is up to complying with their Oath, so somebody must speak out.

And every one of you cowards who has a reason why it shouldn’t be done, you make me sick. Justice demands that this carnival act of a President be held responsible for his crimes against the Constitution. The rule of law, that thing that every conservative knows is more important than politics, demands that the law be enforced. Since this administration will not, somebody must.

Perhaps you should be paying more attention, The Bundy Ranch in Nevada, and now the protests in Murrieta California, we are literally one conflict between the Fed and citizens away from a civil war.

oscarwilde on July 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Again, you must be really young and know nothing about history. Anyone that lived through daily civil rights and anti-war riots and protests in the 60s would laugh at this.

Obama is trying to provoke an incident. This is nothing new.

faraway on July 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM

I, on the other hand, WAS there. Those civil rights protesters changed the country forever. Murrieta is a start, and I am damn proud of them.

BTW, that is the next town from my mother so I get regular up-dates.
It’s also a racially and ethnic diverse town.

katy the mean old lady on July 8, 2014 at 5:33 PM

I was there as well. I lived through the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK. Kent State occurred when I was a college freshman. While the violence, bombing and riots were frightening there is a huge difference between that time and this time.

We did not have a president who was actively working against the best interests of the country and openly thumbed his nose at the Constitution. I’m no fan of JFK or LBJ, however, they didn’t despise this nation the way Obama did.

We didn’t have a nation in which radicals were making policy and passing laws. The Left was still for the most part confined to college campuses. It wasn’t in power. Ayers was on the run–he wasn’t giving interviews on television.

We did not have a nation in which the warp and woof of home and family had been frayed and ripped.

In short the riots of the time were worse than what we have seen thus far, but the backdrop against which they occurred, and the composite background of the nation was far, far different.

Figures all the Rombots would show up to trash Palin because they don’t have the ball$ that Sarah has to actually attack Obama.

How’s that Romney Administration workin’ out?

Oh, wait……

victor82 on July 8, 2014 at 11:20 PM

How’s that Palin Administration (of anything) working out? If she has the balls you refer to, why doesn’t she just run for office? You think chirping from the sidelines in the far right echo chambers is doing something brave to change the course of government in America?

Impeachment won’t negate the failure to win more voters than Democrats in Presidential elections. The energy spent pursuing impeachment would be better spent on promoting sound governance, policy, and regaining the trust of a larger share of Americans.

How’s that Palin Administration (of anything) working out? If she has the balls you refer to, why doesn’t she just run for office? You think chirping from the sidelines in the far right echo chambers is doing something brave to change the course of government in America?

It works hell of a lot better then the mitt romney Administration, cheaper too.

She was about to when the panicked elitist in the co-ruling Rovian GOP took here out. It started with their media hqacks–Will.. Krauthammer, Coulter, Ingraham, then Christie, then Coulter and Ingraham together and finally the big gun, Dick Cheney took a shot at her, as he dutifully did at Cruz for his elitist friends.

The dirty truth is that the GOP is not the friends of conservatives and wont tolerate citizens actually having a voice in their co-ruling government.

For beginners, the numbers aren’t there. Impeachment (maki8ng formal misconduct or criminal charges) is done in the Senate. The Senate is Democratic. -0- Democrat senator will vote for impeachment. On top of that many RINOS (probably all of them) will also vote NO to impeachment which even Pat Buchanan describes as a “bridge too far”. Check mate.

Sun Tzu: “If the battle can’t be won don’t fight it.” Let Obama drown in his own spit and don’t make a martyr out of him which a hopeless suicide charge will accomplish.

How’s that Palin Administration (of anything) working out? If she has the balls you refer to, why doesn’t she just run for office? You think chirping from the sidelines in the far right echo chambers is doing something brave to change the course of government in America?

Impeachment won’t negate the failure to win more voters than Democrats in Presidential elections. The energy spent pursuing impeachment would be better spent on promoting sound governance, policy, and regaining the trust of a larger share of Americans.

lexhamfox on July 9, 2014 at 1:40 AM

Sorry, but you guys had your chance. You kicked conservatives in the teeth and ran a candidate who was the Granddaddy of Obamacare, and you’re still upset that you’re not playing Romney Cabinet Derby. Palin warned all of you not to run a squish, but that’s what you did. And you guys got your asses kicked.

Project ORCA, much?

Now, Governor Marmalarde thinks that he has the stones of Richard M. Nixon and wants to run in 2016.

Sorry, but you actually have to BE like Nixon to rise from the dead like Nixon. Only Palin can do that.

Which is more of a fantasy, impeachment making a difference or a Republican majority actually doing anything?

Dongemaharu on July 9, 2014 at 5:52 AM

A Republican majority will pass an amnesty. A pro amnesty republican majority will be used by Bohner and Mconnell as proof that amnesty is the will of the people(republicans included). Graham already stated that his primary win was because of his amnesty stance.

Almost every moderate republican that wins from now until and including the general will attribute the win to a growing need to enact immigration reform. The lesser of 2 evils won’t be lesser after November.

The fact that Palin is getting on the bandwagon only makes it more difficult for candidates who have been associated with her.

Joni Ernst may be one such casualty.

Joni Ernst attempted Tuesday night to walk back statements made at a January event in which she said President Barack Obama had “become a dictator” who should be “removed from office” or face “impeachment.”

In a statement provided to Yahoo News, reacting to a story published earlier Tuesday, Ernst said that she did not believe Obama is a dictator but rather “his repeated use of unilateral action sure makes him look like one.”

“To be clear, I have not seen any evidence that the President should be impeached,” the statement read.

When Republican congressmen have had this question tossed at them during town halls over the past five years, the usual response is that there’s no point impeaching when the Senate is controlled by Democrats. The Senate will vote to acquit, Obama will remain in office, and that’ll be that. It’s silly to put the country through an ordeal where the outcome is foreordained, especially when the political fallout is unpredictable and potentially damaging to the GOP.

Once again, you see everything EVERYTHING! through the prism of politics.

This isn’t about the GOP; it’s about the country and sending a message. Do the right thing FOR ONCE. I’m sick of this ‘long game’ bullcrap – the GOP has a 100-year strategy to win the Senate but they’ve always proven that they govern like milquetoasts when they get power.

Impeachment won’t negate the failure to win more voters than Democrats in Presidential elections. The energy spent pursuing impeachment would be better spent on promoting sound governance, policy, and regaining the trust of a larger share of Americans.

lexhamfox on July 9, 2014 at 1:40 AM

And winning elections won’t suddenly turn the GOP into a sound governing body of conservative statesmen. So what have we got to lose?

Hell, winning elections doesn’t change jack squat. The behemoth that is the Federal Government rolls on, grinding us into dust beneath it and there is NOTHING that can stop it.

After a certain point (a point surpassed quite some time ago), the politics have to take a back seat to some simple truth. Obama has committed dozens of impeachable offenses. It just doesn’t matter that Boehner is too cowardly or too far up Barack’s backside to act on it, the need to state as fact that the President ought to be impeached is compelling. It doesn’t matter that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to convict, regardless what is enacted by the House, the Constitution is screaming for someone to defend it, and it seems that no current federal officeholder is up to complying with their Oath, so somebody must speak out.

And every one of you cowards who has a reason why it shouldn’t be done, you make me sick. Justice demands that this carnival act of a President be held responsible for his crimes against the Constitution. The rule of law, that thing that every conservative knows is more important than politics, demands that the law be enforced. Since this administration will not, somebody must.

For beginners, the numbers aren’t there. Impeachment (maki8ng formal misconduct or criminal charges) is done in the Senate. The Senate is Democratic. -0- Democrat senator will vote for impeachment.

MaiDee on July 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM

For those who are slightly more advanced than beginners, impeachment is done in the House. The Senate votes to convict or not to convict, which results in removal from office

Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted by the Senate and removed from office. He is, however, an impeached former president. Which, for a lively cocktail party conversation and for the history books, is better than his never having been impeached at all.

Interesting how little attention has been given to Palin’s threat to leave the GOP (5:33-6:15). “I hate to think that the Republican Party would be leaving me. I don’t want to be leaving it… I’m not going to hesitate unlisting myself from a party I just can’t support anymore.”

How’s that Palin Administration (of anything) working out? If she has the balls you refer to, why doesn’t she just run for office? You think chirping from the sidelines in the far right echo chambers is doing something brave to change the course of government in America?

Impeachment won’t negate the failure to win more voters than Democrats in Presidential elections. The energy spent pursuing impeachment would be better spent on promoting sound governance, policy, and regaining the trust of a larger share of Americans.

lexhamfox on July 9, 2014 at 1:40 AM

Sorry, but you guys had your chance. You kicked conservatives in the teeth and ran a candidate who was the Granddaddy of Obamacare, and you’re still upset that you’re not playing Romney Cabinet Derby. Palin warned all of you not to run a squish, but that’s what you did. And you guys got your asses kicked.

Project ORCA, much?

Now, Governor Marmalarde thinks that he has the stones of Richard M. Nixon and wants to run in 2016.

Sorry, but you actually have to BE like Nixon to rise from the dead like Nixon. Only Palin can do that.

victor82 on July 9, 2014 at 10:06 AM

You go ahead and keep sending her cash until God tells her directly whether or not to run for any office.

After a certain point (a point surpassed quite some time ago), the politics have to take a back seat to some simple truth. Obama has committed dozens of impeachable offenses. It just doesn’t matter that Boehner is too cowardly or too far up Barack’s backside to act on it, the need to state as fact that the President ought to be impeached is compelling. It doesn’t matter that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to convict, regardless what is enacted by the House, the Constitution is screaming for someone to defend it, and it seems that no current federal officeholder is up to complying with their Oath, so somebody must speak out.

And every one of you cowards who has a reason why it shouldn’t be done, you make me sick.

Justice demands that this carnival act of a President be held responsible for his crimes against the Constitution. The rule of law, that thing that every conservative knows is more important than politics, demands that the law be enforced. Since this administration will not, somebody must.

He could walk down Pennsylvanian Ave with the decapitated head of a woman in one hand and a bloody knife in the other, screaming “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs and 32% of the population would still vote for him. And most of the liberal MSM would headline the story as “Republicans manage to set up Obama.”

And every one of you cowards who has a reason why it shouldn’t be done, you make me sick. Justice demands that this carnival act of a President be held responsible for his crimes against the Constitution.

Freelancer on July 9, 2014 at 12:05 AM

THIS needs to be repeated in every one of Allah’s RINO threads.

fossten on July 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Every prosecutor knows that you don’t bring charges unless you believe that you can make them stick and get a conviction.

The votes are not there. Assuming we could get EVERY Republican to vote for impeachment, then conviction, we still need DOZENS of democrats to get on board.

Can you make a list of the democrats who you think would be joining the impeach Obama Congressmen?

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been “impeached”. Next, the Senate tries the accused.

The House impeaches by simple majority vote, as it did with Clinton; then a trial is held in the Senate, as with Clinton. Nixon was never impeached; Goldwater, et al, convinced him to resign before it happened.

US embassy in Mexico City admits to collusion with Mexico FOR OVER A YEAR to facilitate the invasion:

Embassy Statement

Mexico City, July 08, 2014 – We applaud yesterday’s announcement by Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto regarding Mexico’s strategy for its southern border. The Mexican government has been working on this strategy for more than a year, and has routinely briefed the U.S. government on Mexico’s objectives….

The votes are not there. Assuming we could get EVERY Republican to vote for impeachment, then conviction, we still need DOZENS of democrats to get on board.
Can you make a list of the democrats who you think would be joining the impeach Obama Congressmen?
RUexperienced on July 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM

A simple majority vote in the House for impeachment and 2/3 of the Senate for conviction and removal.

Passing the Articles of Impeachment in the House would be no problem; getting the Senate to be objective and honest in the performance of their duty to convict would be the trick.

So much of what Obama does is defined down to murky malfeasance, and the media helps Obama create excuses that blame everything Sarah points to here, on the republicans in Congress.

If there were a smoking gun somewhere, for instance if he has colluded with the presidents of Mexico and Guatemala to endanger children into making the trek thru Mexico to invade our borders…if there were agents in South America directly linked to him, telling the kids to come…if it is happening at the Embassies with the Food Stamp advertisment….even the advertising of food stamps to the undocumented immigrants…that doesn’t melt into Murky Malfeasance, you need a clear case…maybe Hillary knows where the smoking gun is, or Bill, perhaps it might please them to lower Obama to their disgrace????

But in the meantime, we will have to conclude that affirmative action produces applicants that got extra points that did not translate into anything smart or effective. I don’t want to remake American in the image of the social worker in chief or her husband. Do you remember when Michelle Obama said on the the campaign trail what we needed was more social workers instead of CEO’s?

I guess in her world you can get to be a CEO if you only have the smarts to be a social worker. Usually social workers were poor at the math.